I am happy with the Function solution, but was wondering what the syntax will be using pure function. (I looked at many related questions, but could not find solution to apply for this case, I am sure I missed something)

Nasser, as a matter of personal curiosity may I know why you did not Accept my answer. To my eye it is the nicest way, and I would like to know why you do not like it. I ask this sincerely.
–
Mr.Wizard♦Jun 6 '14 at 5:56

@Mr.Wizard all the answers were great and I +1 them all and would have accepted them all if I could. When all answers are good and I do not know which to accept, I normally accept the one which people have voted most to at the time. That is all. if there are two answers with same votes and both equally good, I flip a coin. Thanks again for your excellent answers as always.
–
NasserJun 6 '14 at 23:34

You are welcome, as always. Thanks for satisfying my curiosity.
–
Mr.Wizard♦Jun 7 '14 at 2:49

ah! I was close. I was doing #1[[1]] all along for the first argument instead of just #1, since I also used #2[[...]] for the other argument! I did not notice [[...]] is not needed for the first one (now I know what the error meant :)
–
NasserJun 4 '14 at 2:16

@Nasser, the error message should have given a hint :)
–
kglrJun 4 '14 at 2:17

That is why I think the Function method was more clear. Arguments are defined using normal symbols, and in fixed location and position, so less chance of making a syntax error, and it looks more natural than using pure function with its # this and #1 that. I am trying to learn to use Function[...] more now than pure functions, even though it takes few more keystrokes to write it.
–
NasserJun 4 '14 at 2:27

Mathematica is a registered trademark of Wolfram Research, Inc. While the mark is used herein with the limited permission of Wolfram Research, Stack Exchange and this site disclaim all affiliation therewith.